Manoranjan Mallick, J. - (1.) The petitioner, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., has filed the writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus calling upon the respondents and each one of them to forthwith recall, rescind and/or to withdraw the order dated September 9, 1988 passed by the Respondent No. 1 the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta and to forbear from giving any effect and/or further effect to the said impugned order and/or taking any steps in pursuance of the said impugned order and also for a writ of prohibition calling upon the respondent and each one of them not to give any effect and/or further effect to the impugned order dated 9th September, 1988 and to forbear from taking any steps to the impugned orders and some consequential relief.
(2.) At the time of admitting of the application, the interim order has been passed staying operation of the order dated September 9, 1988 till the disposal of the writ petition.
(3.) The facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by an order of reference dated February 24/26, 1988 referred a purported industrial dispute before the Presiding Officer, Central Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta for adjudication of the issue as mentioned in paragraph 18 of the writ petition. After receipt of the said order of reference the Respondent No. 2 being the workmen represented by Petroleum Employees Union, Eastern Branch, entered appearance and filed a written statement. The petitioner appeared before the Respondent No. 1 through its association, namely, The Employers Association of India of which petitioner is a member and the said Association has authorised two of its Executive Committee members, namely, Dr. Monotosh Mukherjee and Sri M.N. Kar of the said Association to represent the petitioner before the Tribunal in accordance with the provision of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act. On August 25, 1988 petitioner appeared before the learned Tribunal through two of its Executive Committee members of the said Association of which the petitioner is a member and the said two Executive Committee members engaged by the company had also filed a Power of Attorney before the Tribunal on August 25, 1988. The said Executive Committee members filed a written statement-cum-rejoinder and another petition on behalf of the company and served copies of the same on the representative of the Union. Thereafter the Respondent No. 2, namely Union filed an objection petition on August 25, 1988, infer alia, alleging that the Corporation has now again tried to bring in the lawyers in the name of the Employers' Association and/or Federation and/or under different garbs which is colourable, motivated, bad and illegal and submitted before the Learned Tribunal that the petitioner company be directed not to bring in any lawyer to represent itself before the Hon'ble Tribunal either as a practising lawyer or in any other colourable manner as attempted and the same is being objected by the Union.;